Cargando…
Diagnostic Laboratory Tests for COVID-19 in US: Methodology and Performance
BACKGROUND: COVID-19 is a global pandemic caused by a new coronavirus strain. Innovative tests have been developed to diagnose and characterize the spread of COVID-19. Only a few studies have reported the diagnostic value of currently available tests. The diagnostic performance of the tests is a maj...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
American Journal Experts
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7386512/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32743564 http://dx.doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-43374/v1 |
_version_ | 1783563961078120448 |
---|---|
author | Bastola, Mrigendra M. Locatis, Craig Fontelo, Paul |
author_facet | Bastola, Mrigendra M. Locatis, Craig Fontelo, Paul |
author_sort | Bastola, Mrigendra M. |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: COVID-19 is a global pandemic caused by a new coronavirus strain. Innovative tests have been developed to diagnose and characterize the spread of COVID-19. Only a few studies have reported the diagnostic value of currently available tests. The diagnostic performance of the tests is a major concern after the recent resurgence in COVID-19. METHODS: Published papers and FDA data on the currently available tests were used for analysis. Likelihood ratios, and predictive values of tests were computed. Only FDA approved tests were included. RT-PCR performance among different specimen types were also explored. MAIN RESULTS: All the published reports on the COVID-19 tests reported RT-PCR as the validation tool for their results. Not all available COVID-19 tests reported their sensitivity and specificity. Among the publications which reported, the positive likelihood ratio ranged between 0.15 to 0.88 and tests had high negative likelihood ratio (0.99). CONCLUSION: Although most recent publications showed high positive and negative likelihood ratios and high predictive values, the publications on test accuracy and validity have limited scope primarily due to their small sample size and insufficiencies in methodology and published data. Although most lab tests reported high sensitivity and specificity, false omission and false discovery rates were found notable in several COVID-19 lab tests. These results suggest need for caution on test results’ interpretation. Practitioners also need to integrate evidence that is evolving rapidly. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7386512 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | American Journal Experts |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-73865122020-07-31 Diagnostic Laboratory Tests for COVID-19 in US: Methodology and Performance Bastola, Mrigendra M. Locatis, Craig Fontelo, Paul Res Sq Article BACKGROUND: COVID-19 is a global pandemic caused by a new coronavirus strain. Innovative tests have been developed to diagnose and characterize the spread of COVID-19. Only a few studies have reported the diagnostic value of currently available tests. The diagnostic performance of the tests is a major concern after the recent resurgence in COVID-19. METHODS: Published papers and FDA data on the currently available tests were used for analysis. Likelihood ratios, and predictive values of tests were computed. Only FDA approved tests were included. RT-PCR performance among different specimen types were also explored. MAIN RESULTS: All the published reports on the COVID-19 tests reported RT-PCR as the validation tool for their results. Not all available COVID-19 tests reported their sensitivity and specificity. Among the publications which reported, the positive likelihood ratio ranged between 0.15 to 0.88 and tests had high negative likelihood ratio (0.99). CONCLUSION: Although most recent publications showed high positive and negative likelihood ratios and high predictive values, the publications on test accuracy and validity have limited scope primarily due to their small sample size and insufficiencies in methodology and published data. Although most lab tests reported high sensitivity and specificity, false omission and false discovery rates were found notable in several COVID-19 lab tests. These results suggest need for caution on test results’ interpretation. Practitioners also need to integrate evidence that is evolving rapidly. American Journal Experts 2020-07-20 /pmc/articles/PMC7386512/ /pubmed/32743564 http://dx.doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-43374/v1 Text en https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which allows reusers to distribute, remix, adapt, and build upon the material in any medium or format, so long as attribution is given to the creator. The license allows for commercial use. |
spellingShingle | Article Bastola, Mrigendra M. Locatis, Craig Fontelo, Paul Diagnostic Laboratory Tests for COVID-19 in US: Methodology and Performance |
title | Diagnostic Laboratory Tests for COVID-19 in US: Methodology and Performance |
title_full | Diagnostic Laboratory Tests for COVID-19 in US: Methodology and Performance |
title_fullStr | Diagnostic Laboratory Tests for COVID-19 in US: Methodology and Performance |
title_full_unstemmed | Diagnostic Laboratory Tests for COVID-19 in US: Methodology and Performance |
title_short | Diagnostic Laboratory Tests for COVID-19 in US: Methodology and Performance |
title_sort | diagnostic laboratory tests for covid-19 in us: methodology and performance |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7386512/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32743564 http://dx.doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-43374/v1 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT bastolamrigendram diagnosticlaboratorytestsforcovid19inusmethodologyandperformance AT locatiscraig diagnosticlaboratorytestsforcovid19inusmethodologyandperformance AT fontelopaul diagnosticlaboratorytestsforcovid19inusmethodologyandperformance |